YUDHVIR SINGH SISODIYA Vs. BABASAHEB AMBEDKAR MARATHWADA UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri S. B. Talekar, learned counsel for the petitioner and shri S. C. Bora, learned counsel for the respondents University.

(2.) THIS petition challenges Ordinance No. 105, clause (iv) framed by Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar marathwada University, Aurangabad inasmuch as it lays down that the benefit of revaluation is only be given in cases wherein the difference between the marks obtained at the first valuation and the revaluation vary by more than 10% of the maximum marks allotted to that paper or subject. The petitioner, who appeared for B. E. (Electronics)examination with seat No. 221624, secured 29 marks in the examination held in December, 1996. He applied for revaluation and in the revaluation, he secured 38 marks. The paper for the subject of electronics was of 100 maximum marks. As per the ordinance No. 105 (iv), the University authorities declined to give the benefit of added marks to the petitioner since only nine marks were added which were less than 10% of the maximum marks allotted to the paper. Petitioner challenges this provision and contends that if the revaluation is permitted under the Rules, whatever benefit a candidate may get, should be credited to him and the restriction imposed that the benefit only be given in case it is more than 10%, is totally unreasonable.

(3.) SHRI Talekar, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that there may be a limited right of revaluation but once the revaluation right is accepted, it cannot be conditioned by saying that the benefit would be given only in case the variation between the two valuations is of a particular degree. Once the University accepts revaluation as a right of the examinee, then it cannot be restricted by such a provision. Shri Talekar contends that the fact that the marks were increased, itself shows that the first valuation was not proper and there is no justification for refusing the benefit to the candidate merely on the ground that the marks additionally secured by him in the revaluation are less than 10%. Shri Talekar further contended that in Nagpur University, the difference of 5% or more marks permits credit of revaluation. He also contended that the rules framed by various universities in the State differ on the point and there is a need for standardization. He relied on two judgments of this Court reported in 1992 mh. L. J. 284, Kishore Kumar Choudhari vs. Registrar, Marathwada University and 1996 (2)Mh. L. J. 958, Viraf Noshir Bilimoria vs. University of Mumbai.